pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
PvXwiki talk:Rating Based on Types and Goals/archive1
True build Rating Yes, I'm aware that this concept is in some ways similar to the concept pvxwiki:True Build Ratings. But because these 2 templates do have another way to work with "attributes", I decided to start this one anyway. Note: this idea is by no means copied from that policy... --SuiraCLAW 19:54, 7 May 2007 (CEST) Discussion Um complicated as hell? And I really don't see the point of this... [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 01:04, 9 May 2007 (CEST) : The point is to make a rating that is actually based on the build and not on the personal opinion of the people who vote (offcourse, the latter would still be in play, just to a lesser degree). Anyway, I added a small, no-nonsense lists that shows exactly how voting would work. That should make some stuff clear. --SuiraCLAW 15:26, 9 May 2007 (CEST) *sigh* love and understanding people, our objective is trying to get something to work here, not unfavoring every single proposed policy... -- Nova -- ( ) 01:56, 9 May 2007 (CEST) :It's quite a good idea to try and get all the builds to be as good as they can be, but some original builds are just not functional no matter how much work is done on them and there needs to be a way to decide on whether a build is it isn't. Voting back on GuildWiki was always based on the build's purpose anyway, and while the build might fulfill it's purpose it may not be necessary. It was always a big debate at GuildWiki over whether builds should be favoured because they work even if they can be done better by another profession or are not really needed in the area they are meant for (e.g. a team spike build in general PvE). Either way it didn't work there and chances are it won't work here. Also, the list of play styles is nowhere near comprehensive enough at the moment and would be too huge if it covered everything. — Hyperion` // talk 15:54, 9 May 2007 (CEST) :: I'll react to this one too to make some stuff clear, should be my last reply here. :: - First of all: both "there is another, better, build that does the same" and "this build isn't useable in the area it is meant for" would be 2 possible reasons to tag a build, in fact, these would be the most important ones (I mean: being tagged with this reason would undermine the build more than other tags would). This should do away with most "original" builds (these belong in the user space). :: - The concept is indeed that all builds are perfect, unless it is stated otherwise. However, this does not mean that we would do everything to make a build functional: we would just say what's wrong with it. :: - Yes, voting at gwwiki was often based on purposes. Still, it happened extremely often that somebody voted unfavored without giving a clear reason. Not to forget, it was often not clear why a build was actually unfavored. While this policy has indeed similarities with the old gwwiki policy, I do believe it's better because it makes clear what's good and what's wrong. :: - About the list: when I talk about "play style" I actually mean: "all kinds of builds that share the same purposes and things they should be able to do". Knowing this, I don't think that the list would be too huge. --SuiraCLAW 16:48, 9 May 2007 (CEST) :::Where is the 'Rating' aspect of this policy that is sugested by it's name? I do not see a new or inovative way to 'rate' builds. This seems more like a sorting/organization policy to allow for easier location of a desired build, but at the heart, builds are still only rated on a 'yes' or 'no' principal. There is already a decent organization policy that nearly sorts things how you are wanting it. If I want a Warrior for PVE I don't need to go diving into "Warrior, tank (pve)" category, I just have to go to Category:All_tested_PvE_builds and look under 'W'. Your running into a similar concept that I am running into and that is finding the lowest common denominator for classifying build types. For example, Spike builds (be it, Rt, Elle, Ranger, Necro etc.) all function off the same principal and don't necisarrily require their own individual category. They could easily all be bundled into the same department. Additional sorting/organizational system could be benificial to the wiki if people think it's currently disorganized Shireen 15:51, 11 May 2007 (CEST) current builds the unfavored build section is in a serious need of cleanup. I'm thinking it would be easier to just whipe all unfavored. but thats just me Eronth 19:35, 9 May 2007 (CEST) :It's quite likely that everything will go into untested first. Either way, there are some good ones in unfavored. -- Armond Warblade 20:43, 10 May 2007 (CEST) This policy is great Yep it is...I'm gonna land a build int he favored section EASILY. *Skill 1: Divert Hexes *Skill 2: Expel Hexes *Skill 3: Deny Hexes *Skill 4: Hex Eater signet *Skill 5: Withdraw Hexes *Skill 6: Remove Hex *Skill 7: Holy Veil *Skill 8: Hex Breaker CAn I get in the good hex removal area now?Cheese Slaya 02:34, 10 May 2007 (CEST) : What? That build would have more than 10 tags that show why the build is rubbish. It would never get into the favored section since it lacks all the other elements a protection monk needs. In fact, I'm quite sure it would be deleted. --SuiraCLAW 16:20, 10 May 2007 (CEST) ::But he's not trying to be a prot monk. He's trying to be a hex removal monk, and at that he excels. Although he should probably drop something for channeling. -- Armond Warblade 20:43, 10 May 2007 (CEST) ::: No offense, but where do you see the catagory "hex removal monk"? It doesn't exist and will never exist (since nobody wants a pure hex removal monk), thus he would need to set his build in the closest play style as possible: protection monk. --SuiraCLAW 12:56, 11 May 2007 (CEST) ::::Bad build(three eiltes) in short, right to the bin.BaineTheBotter 15:43, 11 May 2007 (CEST) prof=monk/mesmerHexesHexHexesEater SignetHexHexVeilBreaker/build :Yeah, you accidentally put 3 elites in there, but here, there is your "Hex Removal" support monk... And as a hex removal monk it can get any hex and prevent diversion shutdown. This would be an example of how to fix it (according to the perscribed system) if that label were created. Now I am not saying that we would keep these builds, but the lower skill user base will be thinking along these lines when they think this policy. And I don't know, depending on the GVG team you were facing, something whacky like this just might be what would be needed, or some new guy realizes that something like this was never created. Shireen 16:10, 11 May 2007 (CEST) :: OK, I edited the main article to make stuff like this clear (although I thought these stuff would be - ehm - common sense). Anyway: unless the GvG meta shifts and you actually want a build completely dedicated to hex removal, this build would never get in the favored section (ignoring vandalism). :::The 3 elites was to show I was sarcastic. My point is that there are certain areas (as much as i understand) that certian builds are "favored" on. It doesn't matter if you can't survive, you're a hex removal monk, remember?:) What im saying is having favored on certain categories is stupid, since excelling in one and failing all the others isn't a good way to determine how effective a build is. You can't argue, that build is effective at removing hexes:DCheese Slaya 01:16, 15 May 2007 (CEST) Quality control Please make sure that this policy has all things required to pass quality control. Please read PvXwiki:Voting on Vetting Policy. IMPORTANT! Make sure that your policy meets all of above requirements or it will NOT become a candidate and people will NOT vote for it. * How new builds will be posted. * How new builds will get into actual vetting procedure. (short) * How discussion and voting/vetting will be done. * How re-voting will be done. (short) * How deletion of builds will be done. (short) * How builds will be organized. (optional) * How it will affect existing builds. (short) * If policy needs mediawiki extension, who will make it? (short) * Plan on how to make a script (if needed). GCardinal 22:01, 10 May 2007 (CEST)